User talk:Jrose1981

Welcome!

Hello, Jrose1981, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest

When I created your account, I noticed that you work for a business. I would refer you to the guidelines on Conflict of Interest (see here).

If your intention is to edit articles about the business (or yourself), I would suggest that anything that you want to add/change/remove is discussed on the relevant talk page (just click at the top of the article's page on the discussion tab) - and provide reliable and independent sources for anything to be changed (see Wikipedia:Independent sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Also declare your connection with the business.

If your intention is to create an article about the business (or yourself), I would suggest that you put a request in at Requested Articles, explaining your connection to the company, and what you would like to be put into an article. Ideally, this would include sources of information that are reliable and independent of the business.

If your intention is to edit in other areas, then please accept my apologies — as you will no doubt appreciate, we have a lot of people who create accounts to edit areas in which they are personally involved!

Enjoy editing here, and if you have any questions, ask for help by using any of the methods mentioned in my welcome message above!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I am still trying to figure out where exactly I need to go to request an article and explain my connection to OTA. I visited [WP:REQ|Requested Articles]], but it was not clear which steps I should take to follow the advice you outlined in your message above. Can you provide me with a more explicit outline of the article request process?

I'm also in need of guidance around citations for the OTA page. The OTA web site (www.ota.com) offers the most accurate description of OTA's mission. Additionally, the site is the most comprehensive resource about OTA's projects and activities. Given that Wikipedia generally does not recognize web sites as verifiable resources, and that there are few, if any, non-web resources that one could cite for basic -and up-to-date- information about OTA, what would you advise that we point to to satisfy Wikipedia's requirement for verifiable, third-party evidence?

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.Jrose1981 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could create an article for 'articles for creation' using this 'wizard', however, OTA will not be enough as a reference.

We do use web references all the time, but only to 'reliable sources', such as BBC News, CNN, that kind of thing. OTA is a primary source, so has to be used with care - specifically it will not help establish 'notability' - which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That carefully-worded phrase explains quite a lot;

Significant coverage - such as, a number of news articles about the article topic - not passing mentions

Reliable sources - well, this is defined in some detail in WP:RS, but the essence of it is - something that is generally trusted - such as the BBC, CNN, The New York Times. Books are good, too. Blog-sites are rarely reliable.

Independent - we don't use primary sources, such as the persons own website, or their publishers/labels website, or anything like that. We avoid press-releases. We want secondary coverage - other people independently writing about the subject.

Please read WP:BESTCOI and WP:BFAQ. Best, Chzz ► 17:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Has the OTA received coverage in any press (New York Times, Washington Post, other publications of a similar reliability)? If so, even if this is in-print only, and not online, it can be cited. Have they been covered in any publications which would meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria? - Again, if so, these can be used. Not all sources need to be online - obviously online sources make it easier for others to verify the information, but if it's in an offline source like a newspaper (national or local), then it is possible for others to verify this, by visiting a library or somewhere which keeps archives of the newspaper.

If I remember, the OTA is the Organic Trade Association? If so, you might find some of the information at Google News and Google News Archive. Some of these are Press Releases, so they come from the OTA themselves, and as such cannot be considered as independent sources. Others are from industry magazines, which may or may not be counted as independent - each article would be considered on a case-by-case basis: if the information is obviously from the magazine's writers then they might be useable, if they are obviously from the OTA themselves, they wouldn't be independent.

The best place to discuss any changes would be on the OTA talk page (here) - and providing reliable sources to back up the changes. Just saying "The bulk of the information in the version you reverted to is both biased and inaccurate and does not reflect what OTA is or does" - it is necessary to provide evidence that this is the case - and the OTA's website cannot be used for this, as they are not independent. The "criticism" in the article as it currently stands is from an academic paper - if there is independent evidence (perhaps in another academic paper), then this can be presented on the talk page. Beyond that, I'm not sure what other advice I can give.

Oh, and when I mentioned explaining your connection, if your sources for adding to the article (or changing the current article) are from reliable WP:independent sources, then all you need to say on the talk page is "I found this ('xxxxxxxx') at 'source'. Should this be added/Should the article be amended to reflect this" - you don't even need to acknowledge your connection with the OTA - and as you are not editing the article itself, then you do not have a conflict of interest. If it's on the talk page, it can be discussed, and if consensus is that the sources are reliable/independent and that the information should be incorporated into the article, then someone else will do that - so no conflict of interest here. If you were to add it yourself, there would be a CoI, and it would most likely be reverted. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]